http://hatrickpenry.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/penry.png

2

Chapter 1

Plume-Gate: the world’s largest, provable cover-up and conspiracy…page 4

Chapter 2

Something Wicked This Way Comes…page 10

Chapter 3

The Cover-Up…page 61

Chapter 4

Fear and Loathing on Fukushima Unit 4…page 183

Chapter 5

Potassium Iodine (KI)…page 305

Chapter 6

Non-seismically Qualified Spent Fuel Pools…318

Chapter 7

NPPs on the East Coast and West Coast are not prepared for Earthquakes and Tsunamis…320

3

Chapter 8

TEPCO’s intentional discharge of radioactive water into pacific…325

Chapter 9

The Saga of the Bechtel pumps…330

Chapter 10

The President’s Source Term…333

Chapter 11

Plumes and Navy Ships…339

Chapter 12

The March 8-10th, 2011 Regulatory Information Conference (RIC)…354

Chapter 13

Plume Maps and Modeling…364

Chapter 14

Tokyo…423

Chapter 15

References…441

Chapter 16

About the Author…443

4

Chapter 1

Plume-Gate: the world’s largest, provable cover-up and conspiracy

“For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence–on infiltration instead

of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted

vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and

political operations. Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is

questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed.”~JFK from his “President and the Press” speech to the U.S. press core on April 27th, 1961

5

Historically speaking, Plume-Gate is the world’s largest, provable, cover-up and conspiracy. If

the Guinness Book of World Records considered ‘cover-up and conspiracy’ as a legitimate

category, then certainly Plume-Gate would be at the very top of the list…above 9/11, above

Watergate, above Fast and Furious, above even the JFK assassination, and not just for the sheer

size and scope of the conspiracy, not because of the many alphabet agencies involved, not

because President Obama is implicated, not because it reveals the truth about nuclear power and

everything that goes with it, but because Plume-Gate is PROVABLE. And that proof is available

to the public in the form of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Freedom of Information

documents. The simple fact is: all one needs is the desire to know and the ability to read to

familiarize oneself with this grandiose cover-up.

6

(Below) From the NRC FOIA documents: concern by NRC’s head of OPA

Eliot Brenner about ‘rumor control’ over the fact that Japanese ‘utility execs’

are in town for the RIC and using the NRC’s ‘communications facilities’ to

respond to the quake.

Now I ask you, my fellow Americans: what does it mean that 2-1/2 years after the Fukushima

catastrophe that I seem to be the only English writing journalist reporting on the world’s largest,

provable cover-up and conspiracy?

I tell you it is a testament to our government’s ability to suppress information.

Furthermore, I cannot stress enough that Plume-Gate is the ‘silver bullet’ we have waited so long

for. It reveals the truth about nuclear power. It reveals the truth about the conspiracy of which

John F. Kennedy spoke of. It is an opportunity we dare not waste and it rides on the lives of all

who have died and all who will die from Fukushima.

7

I ask the parents of America, how much do you love your children? Do you love them enough to

protect them from an immediate danger, a biting dog or perhaps a kidnapper? Of course you do.

But then I must ask: why more do not join the fight to shut down nuclear power? Is it because the

danger is an unseen one? Is it because the danger is too great? Is it because the fight is too time

consuming? Do they not understand the grave threat of nuclear power? Do they not know about

the fallout from Plume-Gate and its consequences?

I say again it is clear to me that information is being suppressed on a scale never before known in

the United States of America. The general public simply does not know the facts.

I put it to you now, that when life-saving information is withheld from the public, in an

orchestrated fashion, by agencies of our government, corporate entities and the media, that this is

disloyalty to our country and our citizens: IT IS TREASON!

Inside the NRC FOIA documents

Allow me to summarize what I have learned thus far from reading the NRC FOIA documents

pertaining to Fukushima:

1) The damage to the Fukushima Daiichi facility was much greater and the ability to respond was

much more difficult than we have been led to believe. There is a reference to a 46 foot tsunami,

the height of which was measured by TEPCO on the walls of Unit’s 1 and 2. There is evidence

Spent Fuel Pool (SFP) #4 and #3 went dry, experienced a ‘zirc fire’ and were a 'melt on the

floor'. The NRC and Naval Reactors were concerned if the melted fuel in the spent fuel pools

would reach ablation temperature and burn through concrete and rebar into the torus below. At

times, dose rates at the facility were lethal or near lethal and as such workers were, at times,

unable and unwilling to make repairs. There is talk of 450-600 REM/hr between Unit’s 2 and 3

and MOX sludge causing access problems. Remote control bulldozers were used to push rubble

into piles to reduce the dose rates. Engineers and workers were unable to follow protocol as there

was/is no known procedure that will rectify a prolonged station blackout due to saltwater

inundation of switch boards, circuitry, electrical components, diesel generators etc. from a

tsunami. The force of the wave dislodged and damaged the diesel fuel tanks that held the fuel

that would have powered back-up generators and when the diesel generators themselves were not

damaged from being submerged, the control panels that operated them were. The water-cannons

and helicopter water drops were marginally effective and did little to cut dose rates. There is

discussion of shipping a series of pumps made by Bechtel from Perth, Australia to Japan in an

effort to cool the reactors and spent fuel pools with seawater. At least one pumping unit was

delivered to Japan on March 22nd, 2011 but in the end the Bechtel pumps were NOT used. DOD

foot the bill on the Bechtel pumps which means John Q. Taxpayer actually covered the

cost…approximately 9.6 billion dollars. It was at least two weeks before power began to be

restored to any significant level in what can only be described as a slow, painstaking effort.

There is proof of multiple radioactive plumes being emitted from the Fukushima facility...some

well into the month of April, 2011. There is discussion that NOAA tracked a 19 mile radioactive

8

cloud along the Japanese coast. There are TEPCO maps of measured (not modeled) plumes,

some of which are over 60 kilometers long.

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: March 13th, 2011…an excerpt from

the Eliot Brenner memo to NRC OPA staffers:

2) The world’s largest, provable cover-up is indicated in the NRC FOIA documents. Some of the

agencies/figureheads implicated are: NRC, DOE, EPA, CDC, HHS, DHS, FEMA, NOAA,

USAID, DOD (Navy, Naval reactors), DOS, White House, President Obama, Bechtel, GE,

IAEA, INPO, NEI, and others in an orchestrated attempt to downplay and conceal the

radioactive plume and fallout from Americans. Documents, plume models and SitReps (situation

report) were denied to China, US states and global ‘stakeholders’. NEI and the ‘Federal Family’

utilized a password protected database for US nuclear power plant (NPP) ‘rooftop grabs’.

Information was suppressed by use of prefabricated ‘talking points’, Questions and Answers and

Press Releases. NRC spends millions to search for negative press and to actively and

aggressively perform countermeasures in the form of disinformation and careful gatekeeping by

their agents (bloggers) online, on TV or in print (i.e.; we know them as trolls and shills). In one

memo Eliot Brenner states (in regards to the NRC press release): ‘while we know more than

what these say, we’re sticking to this story for now’. There is evidence of subversion of the

Freedom of Information Act by the NRC. There is evidence that plume and fallout models were

based on 96 hours or 4-5 days of emissions and there is proof that emissions continued up to the

end of March and beyond. Officials did NOT issue rainwater warnings or ANY warnings based

on these models. There is talk of modeling fallout in Alaska, California, Hawaii, and Midway.

Conservative estimates ranged around 4.5 REM to children in a transpacific model. There was

plenty of discussion of a ‘President’s worst case’ scenario…it was also based on 4-5 days of

emissions. There is discussion about having the benefit of knowing all about Chernobyl and

evidence of modeling based on Chernobyl depositions. FEMA was told to ‘stand down’. There is

concern about a ‘diverging perspective’ and discussions about staying ‘aligned’.

3) It is obvious by the level of importance that the NRC, Japanese authorities and others placed

on Potassium Iodine (KI) throughout the FOIA documents that it is a very important part of

protecting oneself from fallout following a meltdown. This contradicts what US authorities have

9

led us to believe over the years…that KI is not that big of a deal. I am not aware of any

requirement that US nuclear power plants (NPPs) must stock KI in case of an accident.

4) There is evidence that ships from the US Navy were not relocated but that officials knew there

were plumes and high levels of radiation all around the coast of Japan. NOAA tracked a 19 mile

long radioactive cloud along the coast of Japan and on at least two occasions TEPCO measured

(not modeled) radioactive plumes over 60 kilometers long. NRC officials state that most of the

emissions blew offshore.

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: ‘angst’ about moving Navy ships…

5) The NRC’s response to nuclear catastrophe is inhibited, in particular the ability to speak freely

and communicate openly, because participants know they are being recorded and email saved for

the Freedom of Information Act. In many cases participants were not at liberty to discuss the

extent of the meltdowns as they really were. There is evidence of a ‘non-recorded’ line. There is

at least one example of a conversation being taken offline because it was considered 'politically

sensitive'.

6) President Obama called for a review of our domestic fleet of reactors but to my knowledge no

action is taken to rectify any of several critical issues. There are emails that indicate we have

many non-seismically qualified spent fuel pools here in the US and that our nuclear plants may

not be able to withstand a co-event 8.9 earthquake with a 46 foot tall tsunami (or tsunami of that

height alone). NRC official admits that GI-99 manual proves they do not know everything about

the seismicity of the CEUS (Central and Eastern United States), thus East Coast NPPs are

vulnerable to a significant earthquake.

7) TEPCO intentionally discharged radioactive water into the Pacific beginning in March of

2011 and there is abundant proof of this in the NRC FOIA documents (the NRC has known all

along). Interestingly enough, not long after I reported on this fact and provided proof in the form

of evidence from NRC FOIA documents, mainstream media began to report it as well.

10

Chapter 2

Something Wicked This Way Comes

“The conspiracy, the infiltration, the corruption of our government, is the highest national security priority of all.” ~Hatrick Penry

Throughout the NRC Freedom of Information documents pertaining to Fukushima there is

evidence that officials are very much aware of the effects of the fallout from Chernobyl. There is

discussion of using data recovered following the Chernobyl event in modeling of the fallout from

Fukushima. There is even discussion of the number of fatalities that resulted from Chernobyl

fallout. Officials cannot claim ignorance when you consider they admit they know all about

Chernobyl, even using the data from the 1986 incident to aid in modeling. And consider also

this: we are in the direct line of fire from the Pacific Jetstream…the same Jetstream that pilots

‘piggyback’, when returning from the orient, to save fuel. Can officials claim ignorance of the

Pacific Jetstream?

11

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: “We’ve got the benefit of knowing

everything there is to know about

Chernobyl.”

12

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: a discussion of fatalities from

Chernobyl fallout. Note the (inaudible) at the most convenient times. Note that

the number 49 is low enough for us to see…no (inaudible) there. Also note

that a common tactic of the nuclear shills and propagandists is to downplay

the number of Russians who died from Chernobyl by using the number of

those killed in the initial event (49?). This evidence proves that officials know

the difference between the deaths related to the initial event (i.e.: from

explosions and fire) and those from the fallout from Chernobyl. It also proves

they know there is a vast difference between the two figures.

13

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: using deposition rates from

Chernobyl.

14

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: more evidence that officials used

data from Chernobyl fallout for modeling Fukushima fallout. Note the

discussion of doses for children based on conservative assumptions.

15

(below) NOT FROM THE NRC FOIA DOCUMENTS: this is an independent

study of the effects of Chernobyl fallout on file at the Annals of the New York

Academy of Sciences.

16

(below) From the study mentioned above: Chernobyl fallout produced an

estimated 985,000 additional deaths from April 1986 to the end of 2004.

(below) From Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the

Environment: Note that Officials in Oregon issued rainwater warnings in

1986.

17

(below) From the study above: fallout from Chernobyl detected in the

Southern Hemisphere.

18

How bad it really was

While it is true TEPCO withheld information from NRC officials they still had an excellent idea

of what was unfolding and that the Fukushima Daiichi facility was experiencing a ‘worse-case-

scenario’…i.e.: a prolonged station blackout (PSBO). Ultimately this meant the nuclear reactors

would be without power and proper cooling for weeks. When the nuclear fuel gets hot enough it

begins to melt and will eventually take the form of a ‘corium’ blob, sublimating through

concrete, rebar, steel and eventually down into the earth…forever irretrievable.

(below) NOT FROM THE NRC FOIA DOCUMENTS. Units 4 and 3 from left

to right.

19

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: evidence that access was restricted

due to high dose rates.

20

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: a discussion of how to drop the

lethal dose rates so workers can make repairs.

21

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: workers bulldoze rubble into piles

to cut dose rates but dose rates still are ‘incredible’.

22

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Japan unwilling to assemble

Bechtel pumps due to high dose rates. Note that time and time again NRC

officials state that the water cannons and helicopter drops are ineffective.

23

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: talk of 450-600 REM/hr between

units 2 and 3.

24

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: no real plan, just making it up as

they go along. Discussion of strapping lead to Humvees to be able to drive in

to make repairs.

25

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: water drops were not effective

according to NRC

officials.

26

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: pumper trucks also ‘marginally

effective’.

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: TEPCO considering entombment.

27

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: evidence of the ‘President’s source

term’ and more proof that Obama’s administration knew the seriousness of

the

Situation.

28

(below and continued from above) From the NRC FOIA documents:

discussion of the ‘President’s case’ and multiple ‘worst case’

scenarios. Models were not only downplayed by basing them on source terms

of limited duration but by running multiple ‘worse case’ scenarios and

choosing the ‘least-worst-case’.

29

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: evidence of a ‘President’s run’ in

Hawaii and California.

30

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: March 29th and lighting is just

being returned to Unit 4 control room where there is still no access due to high

dose rates.

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: March 16th email suggests SFP of

Unit 4 has lost all water. High dose rates make entry impossible.

31

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: March 14th email suggests

Fukushima is a ‘worst case’ scenario i.e.: a prolonged station blackout.

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: March 15th email suggesting that

“U2 ex-vessel, U4 zirc fire SFP, catastrophe”. Note that redactions are likely

further description of grave conditions at Fukushima, not military or trade

secrets. We only get to see what they want us to see and yet we are expected to

believe the levels of radiation and the damage were minimal.

32

(below) From EPA.gov: the worst probable nuclear incident at an industrial

facility is a fire…(especially with MOX fuel)

33

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: evidence that the March 14th Unit 3

‘lube oil fire’ was not a lube oil fire but something much more serious.

34

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: NRC officials dubious of TEPCO’s

Long term plan to restore plant equipment.

35

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: evidence of a prolonged station

blackout from a March 14th email.

36

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: officials know all about plumes and

fallout from a Mark I as they have already done a study of the possibility.

Also note Chuck Casto’s contention: ‘…in a station blackout you’re going to

lose containment.”

37

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: ignorance is no excuse.

Simulations were done more than 30 years ago that reasonably matched

conditions at Fukushima.

38

The Plume

The result of the prolonged station blackout and subsequent meltdowns would produce an

incredible amount of radioactive emissions from the Fukushima facility: many, many times more

than Chernobyl. The radioactive plumes and clouds would be carried aloft, out to sea, and in the

direction of the USA. The initial plume was a lethal cocktail of plutonium, strontium, cesium,

iodine and other radionuclides and made impact with the West Coast just six days after the

catastrophe. Officially, Americans were told not to expect harmful levels of radioactivity and no

warnings were given. Meanwhile, as far away as France, rainwater and green leafy vegetable

warnings were issued. It is interesting to note that in 1986 Oregon issued rainwater warnings

over Chernobyl fallout.

(below) NOT FROM THE NRC FOIA DOCUMENTS: while President

Obama told Americans “…we do not expect harmful levels of radiation to

reach the United States whether it’s the West Coast, Hawaii, Alaska or U.S.

Territories in the Pacific” and to take no precautions beyond “staying

informed”, countries much further from the Fukushima catastrophe did give

rainwater warnings (just as Oregon did in 1986 over Chernobyl fallout) and

green leafy vegetable warnings as well.

39

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Chuck is looking for an ‘ingestion

pathway’ and a ’plume’

person.

40

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: prevailing winds carry the bulk of

radioactive releases out to sea.

41

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: “…the plume is going up to sea.”

42

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: evidence of a massive plume.

43

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: NOAA’s big blunder (admission of

tracking a 19 mile long radioactive cloud down the coast of Japan) draws the

ire of NRC officials.

44

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: “Now we’re getting calls from

ordinary citizens from CA and OR wanting to know if they need to evacuate.”

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: ‘talking points’ deflect the

American public’s pesky questions.

45

(below) from the NRC FOIA documents: evidence that EPA had lead role on

plume effects in the

US.

46

(below) NOT FROM THE NRC FOIA DOCUMENTS: EPA busted for

‘rigging’ the RADNET monitoring equipment to report lower levels of

radiation. Meanwhile, US nuclear power plants that detected fallout from

Fukushima forwarded the data up the chain of command into a password

protected database accessible only by the ‘Federal Family’.

47

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Admiral Willard admits the plumes

are a ‘repeated event’.

48

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: evidence of venting from Unit 3

blowing offshore.

49

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: “The plume is an extensive plume.”

50

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: moving Navy ships en masse would

have been indicative that the situation was worse than Officials were willing to

admit. Many of our sailors are already suffering from the effects of radiation

sickness.

51

DOSES: I will remind you that the modeling done by NARAC, DITTRA, SANDIA and the

NRC appears to have been based on 96 hours or 4-5 days of emissions and thus evidence of dose

rates will be greatly underestimated. These downplayed models and ones like ‘the President’s

run’ were what ‘harmless’ levels of fallout were based upon. In the NRC FOIA documents

pertaining to Fukushima I found hard evidence that plumes as long as 60 kilometers were being

emitted as late as the 30th of March and beyond. I would also remind you that in July, 2013 Unit

#3 had several days of what TEPCO labeled ‘mystery steam’. The simple fact is, radioactive

emissions from Fukushima have been and will continue to be ongoing: to conduct modeling

based on 4-5 days of emissions is madness! Again I remind you that the numbers expressed in

the following screencaptures will be extremely conservative:

52

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: discussion of dose estimates in

California.

53

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: over conservative transpacific

model shows 4.5 REM iodine to

children…

54

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Transamerica model shows 4.5

REM to thyroid of infants in

California.

55

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: modeling suggests up to 35 REM

thyroid dose to children in Alaska and 4.9 thyroid dose to children in Midway.

Remember, modeling was based on short durations of 4-5 days of emissions.

In the NRC FOIA documents, there is proof that emanations were ongoing

well into the month of April, 2011. Recently, TEPCO announced a ‘mystery

steam’ coming from Unit 3.

56

(below) From the NRC website: .5 REM allowed to the fetus of a pregnant

Nuclear Power Plant employee.

Fatality Studies: Ultimately, the US will pay a heavy toll from the effects of the

radioactive plume and fallout. Conservative estimates range around 1.3 million American

fatalities by the year 2030. Evidence from Chernobyl fallout indicates latent cancers did not

manifest in significant numbers until 5-10 years after the event. It is important to note that all

three of the fatality studies I refer to are congruent with one another i.e.: they have similar

methodology and results. In the case of the bird study, the scientist in question discovered an

increased mortality rate in young birds from Chernobyl fallout in 1986.

57

(below) From the initial Sherman/Mangano study: the estimate of 13,983 deaths

was later revised to 22,000.

58

(below) From the Bobby1 fatality index study: Conservative estimate shows over

1.3 million American fatalities from Fukushima

fallout.

59

(below) Also from the Bobby1 study: left axis is partially obscure but reads in

intervals of 2 (0,2,4,6,8,10,12) per 100,000. Note the delayed effect. If this chart

is accurate, the worst is yet to

come.

60

(below) Another study from the Sherman/Mangano team…this one reveals

elevated trends in hypothyroidism among newborns in Pacific/west Coast

States.

61

Chapter 3

The Cover-Up

“I have to challenge everybody because you must, at some point in your life,

learn to think or you are doomed.” ~William ‘Bill’ Cooper

Shut up, we’re being recorded: Freedom of Information subversion by the NRC

One of my most popular broadcasts on BlogTalkRadio was one where I voiced my concern that

the ability for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to respond to Fukushima, or any meltdown

for that matter, was hampered by the fact that many of their employees know they are being

recorded and are thus unwilling to speak freely and openly. They are keenly aware that their

conversations and emails, through the Freedom of Information Act, may be subject to scrutiny at

a later date and that this recorded correspondence might reflect poorly on the nuclear industry (or

even serve to incriminate someone). In short, the resulting response to a nuclear disaster will be

neither economical, nor efficient. Imagine your local fireman being unable to speak openly with

his partner as they try to extinguish the blaze consuming your home. There are other ways to

subvert the Freedom of Information Act to be sure. ‘Blizzarding’ leaves researchers to comb

through an untold number of pages that are dumped online all at once. To make it even more

difficult, most NRC FOIA documents sport duplicate information; phone conversations, emails,

reports, graphs and charts…are found doubled and even sometimes tripled in the same file.

These tactics are designed to slow the flow of information from the NRC FOIA documents to the

American public. Redaction is another means to subvert the Freedom of Information Act. You

might say that the NRC is ‘going to town’ with the redaction these days. It can’t be due to design

secrets of the infamous Mark I containment model. That would be like redacting the ‘secrets’ of

the old Chevy Corvair, which Ralph Nadar crusaded against because it was so dangerous of a car

to drive. Interestingly enough, lots of redaction can be found when they are discussing the worst-

case-scenario and Navy ships. Do solar power companies redact and subvert their

documentation?

62

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Politically sensitive information?

Take it offline!

63

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: when Dave Weller and Mike

Weber begin to describe the sublimation process Marty Virgilio is there to

keep them in check.

64

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: a warning about the Freedom of

Information Act.

65

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: the truth hurts…because of FOIA

“we cannot function.”

66

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: evidence of a ‘non-recorded line’.

67

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Chairman Jaczko “…I’m not on a

classified line.”

______________________________________________________________________________

68

Talking Points, Questions and Answers, and Press Releases: How the NRC Keeps the American public in the Dark

Cover-ups are all about control of information. In the case of Plume-Gate, the reality of nuclear

power, the radioactive plume (both by air and sea) and fallout and the evidence of the conspiracy

itself must be kept hidden from the American public at all costs. Of course, a small percentage of

informed critical thinkers will never be fooled, but the simple fact is you don’t have to fool

everyone all the time. You only have to fool most of the people, most of the time.

69

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: NRC officials are NOT allowed to

have open, frank discussions about the Fukushima catastrophe with the

general public, the media or even their colleagues…instead all calls and

questions must be forwarded to those who will utilize pre-fabricated talking

points, press releases and questions and answers.

70

“You can fool some of the people all the time, and those are the ones you want

to concentrate on.” ~G.W. Bush

Generally speaking, when it comes time for authorities to speak with the public, there are three

main tactics used to control the flow of information:

1) Talking Points: we’re all way too familiar with talking points by now. Talking points are

meant to control the subject of a conversation, perhaps steering us towards a lesser,

superficial issue and avoiding the main cause of a problem altogether. Talking points are

a guide. Following them will lead you away from incriminating information about the

establishment.

2) Questions and Answers: Q and As are all about control of the question AND control of

the answer. When an investigator or reporter is unable to ask a question of his or her own

design then free press is truly dead. Also, the answer to the question has been carefully

prepared and has been formulated to be the least damaging or revealing answer possible.

Think back to any Presidential election in America. Remember the ‘town hall’ sessions

where the public was allowed to ask the candidate a question? Those questions are

selected from a list of possible questions that have been pre-screened by the candidate

himself/herself. You are NOT allowed to ask President Obama about aerosol engineering

and drought. You are NOT allowed to ask President Obama about Plume-Gate and the

radioactive fallout and consequential sickness.

3) Press Releases: Think of a press release as a one-way street of information. Just like

watching the mainstream news on TV at night. You can’t talk back, you can’t point out

something is inaccurate and you can’t ask a question. True or not, the information in a

press release flows one way. Examples: I have provided below some examples of how

effective talking points, questions and answers and press releases can be at controlling

information. It is my opinion that this country is in dire need of a frank, open discussion

about the subversion of the 1st amendment and what can be done to restore it. I said an

open discussion…NOT a talking points or questions and answers session.

71

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: world’s apart….public and non-

public information. If nuclear power is safe, why can’t there be full

disclosure?

72

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: talking points….share public

portions only with US

States.

73

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Q and A’s for Senator Boxer in

regards to MOX fuel risk.

74

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Q&A Database…”Lot’s of good

questions, lot’s of poor answers” says it all. Also note the “foia” response to let

them know to tone it down, you are being recorded.

75

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Fiction…”Nuclear power plants are

built to withstand environmental hazards, including earthquakes.”

76

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Reality: “…we likely will need to

re-visit the issue of non-seismically qualified SFPs [spent fuel pools]…of which

I recall there are many”

77

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Reality: “..did the Japanese also

consider an 8.9 magnitude earthquake and resulting tsunami “way too low a

probability for consideration”?” AND “Look at GI-199 [a manual]. It shows

we didn’t know everything about the seismicity of CEUS [central eastern

united states)"

78

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Fiction: "Hawaii, Alaska, and the

U.S. Territories and the U.S. West Coast are not expected to experience any

harmful levels of radioactivity."

79

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Reality: "In Alaska, up to a 35 FAR

rem for a one-year-old child projected thyroid dose." AND "...up to 6.4 in

Alaska for the thyroid dose for the one-year-old for an eastern wind." (These

were conservative estimates based on 4-5 days of emissions. I have hard proof

of measured (not modeled) plumes over 60 kilometers long as late as March

30th, 2011 and beyond.)

80

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Reality: "...four and a half REMs is

a thyroid for infants in California." (Again I remind you these projections

were very conservative estimates based on 4-5 days of emissions.)

81

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Fiction: "...EPA is increasing

monitoring." (The truthful part in the email below is that they are NOT

supplying the location of the radioactive cloud)

82

(below) NOT FROM THE NRC FOIA DOCUMENTS: Reality: following the

Fukushima disaster the EPA rigs the RADNET system. Also, much of the

RADNET system is found to be inoperable at the time. Later, Obama would

allow the permissible radiation threshold to be increased dramatically. (This

screencapture is not from the NRC FOIA documents. Credit and special

thanks go to Alexander Higgins.)

83

Examples of Questions and Answer's:

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: the reality about KI is that the same

ones who say it's not that important are the same ones who don't want to go to

Japan without it. I cover this issue in greater detail in Chapter 5 (page 304).

84

(below) Another Q and A from the NRC FOIA documents.

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Gregory Jaczko: 'Let's delete the

non public piece related to new reactors.'

85

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: the American public is not being

informed of the facts.

1) Below is an example of how a particular Question and answer is modified

to be as innocuous as possible:

2) The answer is too revealing and technically inaccurate. Note how the word

'yes' is slated to be removed and later the word 'considered' as well.

86

3) The new Q and A is now ready. It is as generic as possible with the least

amount of incriminating/revealing information.

87

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: here is a discussion about talking

points for US states in case they have questions.

88

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: American states were denied

crucial information about the plume and fallout.

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Roger Witherspoon and the Case

of the Puzzling Press Release Part 1

89

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Roger Witherspoon and the Case of

the Puzzling Press Release Part 2: Only Eliot "While we know more than

what these say, we're sticking to this story for now" Brenner can deflect the

hard-nosed inquiries of Roger

Witherspoon!

90

Liar, Liar: How NRC and other Agencies Present a United Front of Deception

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the

people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for

the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” ~Joseph Goebbels (German politician and Reich

Minister of Propaganda in Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945)

When police detain multiple suspects simultaneously, they are careful to separate each one and

interrogate them alone. In this manner, the suspected criminals don’t have an opportunity to ‘get

their story straight’ or to ‘prepare the lie’ that they will later employ in an effort to avoid

prosecution and punishment for their crimes. In the case of Plume-Gate, the world’s largest

provable cover-up, the criminals involved had the opportunity to not only ‘get the story straight’

but to discuss the fact that they needed to ‘get the story straight’. In a disaster the size and scope

of Fukushima it is logical that responders want to ‘be on the same page’ as far as sharing

accurate, up to date information: this alone does not indicate a cover-up, conspiracy or criminal

wrongdoing. However, when you consider ALL the evidence that Freedom of Information

researchers have provided from the NRC documents pertaining to Fukushima, the issue of

‘getting the story straight’ is just one more piece of a puzzle that fits perfectly into the obvious

picture of a massive, multi-agency cover-up.

91

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: note that Ambassador Roos is

getting info from DOE and AMS. In an upcoming screencapture you can see

where the Ambassador was calling for a ’pessimistic scenario'. Were DOE

and AMS pushing the 'least-worst-case-model'? Also note the term

'consolidated viewpoint'...it looks as if they don't want different versions of

what happened at Fukushima circulating around.

92

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Note the Ambassador is requesting

a 'pessimistic scenario' and this request is forwarded up the chain of

command to the White House for 'alignment' before being allowed. It looks as

if they don't want anyone speaking out of turn. In certain cases plume models

and situation reports (SITREP) were denied to U.S. states, stakeholders

outside the U.S.A (NPP owner/operators) and China. It is critical you

understand 'gaining alignment' means prior approval of the task being

requested (often modeling of the plume/fallout) or approval of information to

be released and thus a unified voice as a result.

93

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents Part 1: the next screencapture is

part 1 of a 3 part series. In this first segment there is a discussion taking place

about information that has leaked and made its way to the Wall Street

Journal. When Larry Camper says 'It's amazing how people know this staff

and we can't seem to get it' he is referring to whoever leaked the information

and the fact they should have known better. Sounds like the 'staff' does not

have out best interest at heart...

94

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents part 2: note the term 'consolidated

input'.

95

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents Part 3: note the term 'consolidated

input'. They want to be sure they are all giving the Ambassador the same

story. Whatever the story was it was a much less alarming picture of reality,

so much less alarming the Ambassador felt he needed to request a 'pessimistic

scenario' (see above).

96

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: this email explains that there is one

official plume model provided by the IAEA and everyone is to refer to that.

Please note that in my article (included in this complete work) Seek and

Destroy I show where the NRC Cyber Security Team had several leaked

plume models pulled from online.

97

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: the NRC and other agencies

withheld information (plume models etc.) from the U.S. states even though

they made the claim that they “…did not expect harmful levels of

radiation…”. Samples from U.S. nuclear power plant 'rooftop grabs' were

logged into the NEI's password protected database that only the 'Federal

Family' has access to. If the plume, fallout and subsequent measurements

were harmless, why is this information being hidden from us?

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: this screencapture from the NRC

FOIA documents show U.S. states (and other stakeholders) were denied the

situation report for Fukushima (SITREP). If the disaster was

insignificant, why is this information being withheld?

98

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: if it's going to make waves, they

want to approve it first. 'Share with others the need to respect OUO' (official

use only)...ie: spread the word to keep your information to yourself unless it

has been approved for the

public..

99

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: You can't get much more obvious

than this one...note the phrase 'stay aligned'.

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: actually got more obvious: DOD

and NRC are worried about a 'diverging perspective' regarding the 'current

severity'...

100

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: the 'one voice'.

101

Flawed, Downplayed or Bungled Modeling: How the NRC Taught Me to Love the Plume

Throughout the NRC Freedom of Information documents pertaining to Fukushima there is quite

a bit of discussion concerning modeling of the plume and fallout. In order to issue radiation

warnings, knowledge of the plume’s speed, direction and intensity must be known. This is done

by way of computer analysis: the two fundamental variables being the source term(s) data

(sources of radiation being emitted) and the length of duration that the emanations will last for.

Other possible factors to consider are the type of fuel itself, such as the Mixed Oxide (MOX) fuel

in Unit #3 (which is more dangerous than the standard fuel that was being utilized in Units 1-2),

and certain atmospheric conditions such as wind speed and direction. The reality of the

Fukushima disaster is that it WAS a worst-case-scenario for reactors 1-4. Consider the loss of

electrical power for weeks on end and the initial ‘Plan B’ type of ‘water-cannon-concrete-truck’

cooling system response that NRC officials said was all but useless. How does it get worse than

no cooling and no power for weeks?

102

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: water cannons and helicopter water

drops were not very effective…

103

If one considers the source terms and length of emissions that a true ‘worst-case-scenario’ would

represent, it is easy to understand why the NRC and DOE had to downplay, delay and

purposefully bungle the modeling of the radioactive plume and fallout. As a result President

Obama was able make the statement that experts did not expect harmful levels of radioactivity to

reach the U.S. and thus there were no warnings or alerts issued for American citizens.

Meanwhile, other countries as far away as France, did issue rainwater warnings and green leafy

vegetable warnings as well.

At the end of the day the simple fact remains: the truth about Fukushima (especially as revealed

in the NRC FOIA documents) and nuclear power cannot coexist. Until the day of the fateful

earthquake and tsunami in Japan, the establishment had been effective at suppressing the truth

about the nuclear industry, even after Chernobyl. But now the size and scope of the effects of

Fukushima make it impossible to ignore that truth any longer. And now that truth is beginning to

chip away at the foundation of lies upon which this toxic industry has been built. How much

longer before that one crucial keystone is removed that will topple the entire structure?

Tactics used to downplay modeling/sampling:

1) To reduce the size and intensity of plume and fallout models, simply reduce the length of

duration of the source term(s), i.e.: reduce the length of time that radiation will be emitted from

the damaged reactor(s). Throughout the NRC FOIA documents pertaining to Fukushima a 4-5

day emission period was considered for most of the modeling of the radioactive plume and

fallout. What’s wrong with that? Over 2 years after the catastrophe there are still emissions by air

and sea and no end in sight. If, as many experts suspect, we are facing a quadruple ‘China

syndrome’ the radioactive effluents will continue to be released for many years.

2) To reduce the size and intensity of plume and fallout models, reduce the number of source

terms. Of course with Fukushima, they knew right away that all power had been lost to Units 1-4

and that those units, without power or proper cooling for weeks on end, would all be source

terms of a very high magnitude. The evidence shows that there were plenty of models circulating

that downplayed the number of source terms, just like they did with the duration of emissions.

104

3) To reduce the intensity of plume and fallout models, simply delay taking measurements and

samples until 24 hours after the initial criticality. A 24 hour delay will allow time for the plume

(and higher concentrations found in the initial release) to blow away. Subsequent measurements

in the same location will not be as high.

4) When a measurement or sample from the field is alarmingly high, simply question the veracity

(methodology or type of test) and insist that another sample be taken to double-check the first.

By the time that person can take another test, the concentrated plume that he or she sampled from

originally has now shifted with the wind direction and the subsequent sample will naturally read

much lower as the plume is no longer in the same place. The 2nd

, much lower test result, will be

the one utilized.

5) When it comes to sampling, choose only short lived radioactive isotopes such as Cesium

and Iodide. Never test for long lived radioactive isotopes such as plutonium. The less number of

radionuclides you sample for, the less alarming the result will be. 6) When sampling H2O,

especially seawater from the ocean near Fukushima, take samples from the surface of the body of

water and not from the sea floor. Heavy particulates which may be more radioactive, such as

plutonium, will naturally sink to the bottom and can be avoided in this way. 7) When it comes

to a ‘worst-case-model’, create a wide range of possible ‘worst-cases’ with one of them being the

‘least-worst-case’. This is the one to promote. Although logic dictates there can only be one

‘worst-case-model’ the NRC and DOE are not the kind of agencies to let logic get in the way of

their work protecting citizens and the environment (or our men and women in the armed forces

for that matter). Now let’s have a look at evidence obtained from the NRC Freedom of

Information documents pertaining to Fukushima:

105

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: note the date of April 12th, 2011

and the estimate of the radioactive discharge from Fukushima as being 10%

of Chernobyl. At best this estimate is based on a month of releases and at

worst (and most probably) 4-5 days.

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: an IAEA briefing, also from April

12th: "Russia also (correctly) pointed out that the accident at Fukushima is

still ongoing and it is premature to speculate how much radioactivity will be

released..."

106

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: again, please note the short

duration of 96 hours for this modeling. Plumes were ongoing and TEPCO

measured (not modeled) plumes over 60 kilometers long as late as March

30th, 2011.

(below) This screencapture is NOT from the NRC FOIA documents but is a

headline from Enenews.com. Note that on July 18th, 2013 steam was seen

emanating from Unit #3...over 2 years after the catastrophe emissions

continue.

107

(below) This screencap is taken from a study by Sandia National Laboratories

and is NOT from the NRC FOIA documents. Sandia does work with the NRC

and DOE however. Note that they 'do not take into account the reactor

building explosion at 68 hours'...why?

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: there seems to be no hurry to run a

worst case analysis and first they must define how they would do that analysis.

Can they really be this discombobulated?

108

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: when the 'worst-case' isn't the

worst-case.

109

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: waiting 'quite a while' on NARAC

(National Atmospheric Release Advisory Center is tasked with plume

modeling under the DOE) with no priority.

110

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: no priority from NARAC on dose

projection as far as the East Coast.

111

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: "We'll get to them when we get to

them."

112

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: plume modeling "on hold" by

NOAA.

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: high doses or measurements are

always questioned.

113

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: more evidence of NARAC foot-

dragging and 'five worst

cases

114

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: the President's worst case scenario

was based on 4-5 days of

emissions.

115

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: 'angst' by 'folks' about 'the source

term'.

116

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: even more NARAC foot-dragging.

117

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: here's what's riding on these plume

and fallout models.

118

119

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: more 'angst'...about moving naval

ships.

120

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: delay on a worst-case run (model).

Note the comment about undue influence.

121

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: evidence that some runs (models)

are not realistic.

122

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: 'melt-core' worst case model gets

big numbers on the West Coast. No problem…call in specialist Kathy Gibson.

She's a magician with a plume model and has almost as many of them as there

are cards in a deck.

123

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: no one can agree on a worst case.

Seriously?

124

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: here is a reference to the March

14th 'lube oil fire' which NRC employees claimed could not have been a lube

oil fire at all...but something else. The discussion centers on running a model

for this event and running it from the 14th forward. If you model from a later

date the 'volatiles' may have decayed and may no longer be present thus the

model will be inaccurate (much less severe). See tactic #3 above.

125

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: radiation samples alarmingly high?

Kathy Gibson to the

rescue!

126

127

128

129

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: an email from Chris Miller

(USNRC) to Ron from the DOE which incredibly enough is a list of reasons

why the NRC needs the DOE to deploy their fixed wing aerial measuring

system and almost comes across as a plea for help. Was the DOE actually

questioning the NRC's need for their fixed wing aircraft?

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: looks like it got so bad with the

'least-worst-case-scenarios' that the U.S. Ambassador in Japan actually had to

request a 'pessimistic' model.

130

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: delayed input changes the results of

the modeling.

131

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: evidence of "cherry picking" from

the plume models...

132

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: NRC official Jim Wiggins discusses

a White House request to run a model that will make President Obama’s Rose

Garden speech true…AFTER the speech has already been given. Remember

that President Obama left for South America with family not long after his

Rose Garden advisory…

133

The Emperor Wears No Clothes: NPP "Rooftop Grabs" Reveal Picture of Widespread Fallout over US

Another critical aspect to the Plume-Gate cover-up centers on the ‘rooftop grabs’ (radiation

measurements) taken from nuclear power plants (NPPs) here in the United States. This data,

reported by at least 18 nuclear power plants, paints a picture of widespread Fukushima fallout

across the United States. It also proves authorities we're well aware of the danger here at home

but were unwilling to issue warnings or advisories (rainwater, milk, green leafy vegetables) so

that the American public could take precautionary measures (remember that FEMA was ordered

to 'stand-down'). Because of the nature of this 'smoking gun' evidence, the samples

were carefully secreted into a password protected data base overseen by the Nuclear Energy

Institute (NEI), labeled as OUO (Official Use Only) and made available exclusively to the

'Federal Family'.

134

(below) NOT FROM THE NRC FOIA DOCUMENTS: modeling of

Plutonium 239 (P-239) mirrors the map shown above of US nuclear power

plants that reported detecting fallout from Fukushima.

(Authors note: to be clear, there is a difference between the modeling of fallout and the actual

sampling and detecting of fallout in the field. Modeling is an assumption, an estimate of the

plume and fallout, generated by computers. Sampling and detecting yields actual real time

results of radiation levels (with varying degrees of accuracy) at a specific location or locations.)

135

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: US nuclear power plants report

fallout from Fukushima on a voluntary basis.

136

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: NRC prepares talking point

covering the 'rooftop grabs'.

137

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: NRC 'giving the runaround' on

the data from the rooftop grabs: "...we don't have anything, and EPA is who

you need to talk to."

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: U.S. nuclear plants are instructed to

alert the NRC if they detect 'radiological changes'.

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Add Palo Verde, SONGS, Diablo

Canyon, Columbia and Millstone to the list of U.S. nuclear plants that

detected fallout from Fukushima. Note that 'Industry has agreed to collect the

data and provide to NRC for distribution with Federal Government.'

138

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: March 23rd, 2011…add Kewaunee

nuclear plant to the list of U.S. plants that detected Fukushima fallout.

Notable quote: 'Notice on industry data collection similar to what was

following the Chernobyl accident in 1986.'

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)

is the focal point for data from U.S. nuclear plants and is developing an online

database.

139

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: evidence of a briefing sheet that is

approved for circulation inside a nuclear plant.

140

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: checking for clearance before

forwarding the briefing sheet along to the DOE, EPA and the states. I've

never seen the DOE or EPA denied modeling or sampling results but I've

found evidence that U.S. states were.

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Checking for clearance before

sharing sampling data with the DOE, EPA and California (CA).

141

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: '...we recommend that at this time

we don't share with the state.'

142

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: '...environmental data that exceeds

the reporting levels first come into the Document Control desk...'

143

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: evidence of a password protected

database for air and standing water samples from U.S. nuclear plants. The

public at large does NOT have access to this data.

144

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: NEI email shows widespread

circulation...subject: 'US nuclear power plant environmental data resulting

from Fukushima' (continued on next

page)

145

146

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: sampling data from US nuclear

power plants reveals Fukushima fallout. It is important to note that there is a

big difference between the amount of radiation sampled in a continuous

sample, drawn over a 24 hour period, and a short duration sample of minutes

or hours. It is analogous to testing the air filter of an automobile that has run

all day compared to one that has run an hour.

147

148

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: an email from March 23rd, 2011

with attachment titled: 'US Nuclear Plant Reported Measurements.xlsx' (data

shown in 2nd screencapture below)

149

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Particulate grab samples from San

Onofre and Palo Verde. Please note that myself and other FOIA

researchers combed through hundreds of thousands of pages of documents to

find these few pieces of evidence, well hidden from the casual observer in what

I call the 'needle-in-a-haystack' effect.

150

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: a measured plume map from April

4th, 2011. It is important to note that a) most particulate grabs were of a short

duration b) measured plumes from Fukushima were emitted on a constant

basis well into April of 2011 c) aerosolized plutonium, from Fukushima, has

been detected as far away as Lithuania and d) US rooftop grabs only reveal

radioactive Iodine and Cesium.

151

(below) Results from my own rainwater sample of 3/15/12, a year after the

Fukushima disaster, reveal radioactive Strontium in Gainesville, Florida.

152

(below) NOT FROM THE NRC FOIA DOCUMENTS: countries as far away

as France issued rainwater and green leafy vegetable warnings.

(below) From the Journal of Environmental Radioactivity: Aerosolized

plutonium detected in Lithuania in late March and early April of 2011.

153

(below) From the Sternglass study: doses to children may be as much as a

hundred to a thousand times more than an adult.

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (part 1) A March 31st,

2011 email from the Arizona Division of Emergency Management indicating

something is amiss with the sampling: "...the Palo Verde data sample is

different than what was collected from the Arizona Radiation Regulatory

Agency." and "I just want to be prepared if I need to answer the question

about why the findings are different."

154

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (part 2) an email response to the

Arizona Division of Emergency Management: "NRC is not publicly reporting

the results that Palo Verde reports to us."

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (part 3) evidence that data,

including measurements of I-131 in air and milk samples, was forwarded to a

website and shared amongst the 'Federal Family'.

155

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: How the rooftop grab information

flows: NPPs to NRC, NRC to EPA. And when there is a chance that

information may become public, Eliot Brenner sweeps in and takes control of

the

situation.

156

157

158

159

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (part 1) a March 23rd email

indicating interest by the Protective Measures Team (PMT) in 'elevated

environmental samples' at Nine Mile and Ginna NPPs.

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (part 2) an email from Pamela

Henderson expressing concern for who is collecting radiation data in the US.

160

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (part 3) confirmation that the

Protective Measures Team (PMT) received information on the sampling at

Nine Mile and Ginna NPPs.

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (part 4) more concern for who is

collecting radiation data is the US...

161

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (part 5) "...environmental data that

exceeds the reporting levels first come into the Document Control desk..."

162

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (part 6) the brutal truth:

"...licensees do not have to report on elevated levels if it is not due to their

licensed activities."

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (part 7) the Protective Measures

Team always get's the data...

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (part 8) serous concern

that ”Licensee developing a press release" over Ginna Nuclear Power Plant

rainwater sample.

163

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (part 9) "Ginna licensing manager

anticipates that CENG corporate will be developing a press release..." (CENG

stands for Constellation Energy Group...owners of Ginna NPP...also see more

on NRC 50.72 below)

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (part 10) cancel that press

release..."NEI will be representing the industry."

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (part 11) "NEI may be issuing a

press release."

164

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: NRC and EPA work together to

present a united front of deception. The statement that there will be 'no health

impact on the United States' was based on intentionally flawed modeling of

short duration (96 hours or 4-5 days of emissions) and of radioactive Iodine

and Cesium

only.

165

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: about the NRC 50.72 rule...

166

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Ginna NPP owners may have been

caused angst by 50.72 (b)(3)(ii) which stipulates any condition that 'degrades

plant safety' must be reported.

167

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: or was the angst over the possibility

of reporting elevated levels of Fukushima fallout at Ginna NPP caused by

50.72(b)(2)(xi)?

168

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: if a news release is planned NRC

wants to know so it can "...respond to heightened public concern."

169

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: "Examples of events likely to be

reportable..."

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: more on the process and criteria

for reporting radiation at US NPPs...

170

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: an example of an 'unscheduled

radiation release'. Since Fukushima fallout was not a result of activities at US

nuclear plants, reporting was done on a voluntary basis.

171

Seek and Destroy: NRC Spends Millions to Search for Negative Press

The strategy is simple. The NRC wants to know who is writing or speaking out against nuclear

power and they want to know the moment an article or video is published. When a report of

media offenders becomes available, a 'Cyber Situational Awareness Team’ springs into action.

This is Big Brother at his best, clamping down on free speech and spreading disinformation

through blogs and social networking sites like FaceBook. Once the negative media is located,

and this appears to be nearly instantaneous, the NRC begins an all-out information war to

counter the effects of that particular piece. In many cases, a simple phone call will do to have an

article removed or edited. Remember, these folks have corporate connections everywhere;

writers have bosses and bosses work for owners. When the corporate owner of your newspaper

calls and demands that you remove and anti-nuclear article, you better believe that article get's

pulled (or edited) 99.9% of the time. Now I ask my fellow Americans, why is it that the nuclear

power industry must act in this way? If nuclear power is clean and wholesome, as they insist it is,

then why must the NRC spend millions in an effort to find and attack information that portrays

them in a negative light? Shouldn't the NRC ask themselves, why is there so much media

speaking out against nuclear power? And where are the countless activists speaking/writing out

against solar power? Do solar power companies spend millions searching the press for articles

that speak poorly of solar power?

(below) from the NRC FOIA documents: follow the money.

172

(below) NOT FROM THE NRC FOIA DOCUMENTS: screencapture is from

the InfoReliance

website.

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: follow the money.

173

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: follow the money, MAR Inc. part 2

(Below) From the NRC FOIA documents: more from the money trail...

174

(below) From the MAR Inc. website...

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: searching all sectors of media for

negative press...

175

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: results of a search...

176

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: a complaint about 'news stories left

out'.

177

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: more on news being left out from a

search...

178

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: plume map take-down part 1

179

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: plume map take-down part 2

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: plume map take-down part 3

180

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: plume map take down part 4

181

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: plume map take down part 5

182

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: updated MAR contract

183

Chapter 4

Fear and Loathing on Fukushima Unit 4

(above: Author Hunter Thompson (1937-2005) was never afraid to report the

truth no matter how ugly it was.)

The trick is to convince the American public, and indeed the world, that the worst-of-the-worst

has not already happened at Fukushima. Even if that means a media campaign of fear-mongering

based around a fantasy doomsday scenario involving the collapse of Unit 4 and its spent fuel

pool. Interestingly enough, all the alternative and mainstream media outlets that are promoting

this bogus Unit 4 doomsday scenario are the same ones who have chosen not to report on the

Nuclear Regulatory Agency’s Freedom of Information Act documents pertaining to Fukushima.

These documents tell the true story of Fukushima: the multi-agency cover-up that downplayed

and concealed the radioactive plume and fallout, the reality of a prolonged station blackout that

produced three ‘China Syndrome’ meltdowns, and the Unit 4 spent fuel pool zirconium fire and

subsequent ‘melt on the floor’ of the fuel rods. The sad reality is that the effects of a nuclear

plant meltdown or spent fuel pool fire can be so sudden and so severe that the possibility exists

that no safety precautions can be taken quickly enough to avoid the consequences completely. In

the case of the Fukushima catastrophe, it took about a week to produce a measurable plume that

traveled south down the coast and then swept inland across Tokyo. These plumes were laden

with aerosolized plutonium. I ask you: how do you evacuate Tokyo in less than a week? How

will we evacuate New York if Indian Point has an accident and produces a plume? Where do you

relocate a city of millions of people? So you see, the reality of the potential of a meltdown or

meltdowns is so horrific, it must be hidden from the public at all costs. And when a meltdown

does occur, the truth of its severity and its effects must also be hidden from the public at all

184

costs. Can you imagine what it would have been like if TEPCO, the Government of Japan, the

NRC and the White House had been up front and 100% honest about the disaster from the start?

What would have happened if officials announced that 1) a plutonium laden plume was drifting

towards Tokyo and 2) multiple plumes and fallout were heading across the Pacific towards the

West Coast of the US? What would have happened if officials were up front and honest about

the triple ‘China Syndrome’ and Unit 4 ‘melt on the floor’ and its effects? No matter how you

slice it, it would be ugly, very ugly. It seems to me that when a country desires both national

security and nuclear power at the same time, it desires the impossible. Furthermore, how can one

have a rational discussion about national security if one does not include a frank, open discussion

about the decommissioning of all nuclear plants? Which is a greater threat to the American

public, Iran’s nuclear program or our own nuclear program? Why would Iran build a nuclear

bomb to use against the US when we have hundreds of stationary bombs, in the form of reactors

and fuel pools, already positioned throughout the country, with incredible payloads far beyond

the capacity of any bomb or missile? Think of the possibilities: terrorist attack, sabotage,

earthquake, tsunami, earthquake AND tsunami, flooding from a broken dam upriver, or even the

old-fashioned accident that aging reactors are bound to have from time to time...why do we leave

ourselves so vulnerable?

About the Fukushima Unit 4 Spent Fuel Pool:

The evidence, from the NRC FOIA documents pertaining to Fukushima, has led me to believe

that:

1) The March 11th

, 2011 earthquake caused immediate structural damage to the Unit 4

building. Spent fuel pool coolant began to drain out through a crack or cracks that were a

result of the earthquake.

2) There was an H2 explosion and a wall or walls of the SFP #4 were ‘blown out’.

3) On March 15th

2011, the hot offload of fuel experienced a zirconium cladding fire and

subsequent meltdown to the floor of the spent fuel pool. According to the IAEA, SFP #4

was on fire and emitting radiation directly to the atmosphere for at least 9 hours and 10

minutes before TEPCO claimed it was extinguished.

4) 75% or more of the radiation contained in SFP #4 may have been released into the

atmosphere. Modeling was done on a 100% release.

5) Any fuel rods recovered (official numbers vary on what the inventory was) will be ones

that were unused and ‘cool’…probably less than 25% of inventory. It is possible that all

fuel rods were affected and none will be salvageable.

The Evidence:

To be clear: I cannot prove that the spent fuel pool of Unit 4 has been destroyed or damaged. Nor

can the nuclear apologists prove that the pool is full of water and the fuel rods are intact. It

should be noted that those who claim that the damage to SFP 4 was minimal and that the rods

will be recovered have only their rhetoric to back them up. They offer no proof. YouTube videos

alleging to be of the Unit 4 spent fuel pool could be any spent fuel pool in the world. ABC and

CBS News have both had film crews at the stricken plant to inspect the Unit 4 offload process

but the video evidence they present is not seamless. The video camera is always turned off

185

before entering the building and then turned back on once inside. Again, the inside of the spent

fuel pool shown in these videos could be any spent fuel pool in Japan. Is it not evidence in and of

itself that after all this time they have not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that their claims are

true? How hard would it be to hold a current newspaper in front of a video camera and then

make an inspection of Units 1-4 for the world to see? Do you believe TEPCO? Do you believe

the NRC? Do you believe the Government of Japan or our own government? All of these entities

have extensive track records of deception and dishonesty and they all have reason to hide the

truth, especially in the case of the Fukushima disaster.

(below) NOT FROM THE NRC FOIA DOCUMENTS: the effects of a

prolonged station blackout (SBO) caused by a 9.0 earthquake and 46 foot tall

tsunami are catastrophic. (this picture is from TEPCO)

186

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: normal operating temperature of

the coolant in a spent fuel pool is 30 degrees Celsius.

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: March 14th, 2011 the temperature

of SFP #4 is now at 84 degrees

Celsius.

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: March 15th FAX from the IAEA to

the NRC "Release Radioactivity Unit 4 Fukushima Daiichi NPP"

187

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: March 15th, 2011-Japanese

authorities inform the IAEA that the spent fuel pond at Unit 4 is on fire and

that "...radioactivity is being released directly into the atmosphere."

188

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Japanese authorities claim the fire

at the spent fuel pool of Unit 4 is extinguished 9 hours and 10 minutes after it

begins. Evidence found in the NRC FOIA documents contradicts this claim.

As of March 16th, TEPCO had yet to remove the rubble blocking the path of

fire trucks and other heavy equipment to the Fukushima facility. Helicopter

water drops, the only other method of delivering water to the spent fuel

pools, are said to be ineffective by NRC officials.

189

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Situation Report Update shows

Unit 4 spent fuel pool in grave danger. Radiation levels are too high to initiate

countermeasures at 30 REM/hr. Note that NRC officials were adamant that

the 'lube oil fire' of Unit 4 was NOT a lube oil fire and instead referred to it as

a 'seminal event'.

190

(Below) From the NRC FOIA documents: from a March 15th brief by the

NRC ET (executive team)...'Fire in the reactor #4 which was burning spent

fuel was extinguished.'

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: as the spent fuel pools heat up,

access problems (of which radioactive MOX sludge was a factor) and high

radiation levels impede any response to the disaster.

191

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (part 1 of a 5 part series) plume

modeling (direction of plume by elevation) from the 15th to the 18th of

March, 2011 by the Japan Meteorological Agency. While this modeling may

or may not be based on the releases of SFP #4, it is indicative of where the

winds of that time period might have carried radiation.

192

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (part 2 of a 5 part series) plume

modeling of Cs-137 by the Japan Meteorological Agency. If modeling of

plutonium was done by any agency or country, it has yet to be found in the

NRC FOIA documents pertaining to Fukushima.

193

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (part 3 of a 5 part series) plume

modeling of Cs-137.

194

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (part 4 of a 5 part series) plume

modeling of Cs-137.

195

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (part 5 of a 5 part series) plume

modeling of Cs-137.

196

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: confirmation of damage to wall of

Fukushima Unit 4.

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: email from March 15th, 2011 "U4

zirc fire, catastrophe"

197

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Ministry of Economy Trade and

Industry (M.E.T.I.) News Release: at 10:30 UTC on March 15th-orders are

given to extinguish the fire at Unit 4 and prevent "re-criticality".

198

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: email from March 16th, 2011-"U4

situation deteriorating. SFP water inventory is lost...dose rates around U4

make entry impossible..."

199

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: email from March 16th, 2011 "The

walls of the Unit 4 spent fuel pool have collapsed, and there is no water in

there."

200

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: cover-page for a March 16th

transcript wherein the damage to Unit 4 is discussed extensively. Speakers

include then NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko, Regional Administrator for

Region 3 Chuck Casto and Director of the Office of Public Affairs Eliot

Brenner.

201

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Chuck Casto: "...we absolutely

know that pool no. 4, though, the walls have collapsed..."

202

203

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Chuck Casto: "You cannot get

inventory [coolant] above the bottom of the fuel.”

204

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: further discussion of damage to the

Unit 4 spent fuel pool.

205

206

207

208

209

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Chuck Casto stakes his career on

Unit 4 having major damage.

210

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Mike Weber “The pool structure is

no longer in existence. The walls have collapsed. So, you have spent fuel sitting

there in a pile.”

211

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: a discussion of “quenching” the

pool (filling it with water…saltwater at first)

212

213

214

215

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: this next series of screencaptures

centers around a discussion about a video that TEPCO alleges shows water in

the Unit 4 spent fuel pool. The TEPCO video surfaced after then NRC

Chairman Gregory Jaczko stood before members of Congress on the 15th of

March, 2011 and announced that the spent fuel pool at Unit 4 was dry.

Throughout the NRC FOIA documents there is evidence that TEPCO

pressured officials at the NRC to ‘reconsider’ their position. A final back-and-

forth between Gregory Jaczko, Chuck Casto and Eliot Brenner settles the

matter when they decide Jaczko will not ’roll back’ any of his statements on

Unit 4.

\

216

217

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: the TEPCO video discussion

continues…

218

219

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: more on the TEPCO

video…

220

221

222

223

224

225

226

227

228

229

230

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: the saga of the TEPCO video

continues…

231

232

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: a discussion about the source of

information about the Unit 4 spent fuel pool.

233

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Jaczko will not be “rolling back”

any of his statements on Unit 4

234

235

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: confirmation from a secondary

source that the SFP of Unit 4 is dry.

236

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: March 16th, 2011 inputs for a

RASCAL (plume modeling) projection. Considering the assumption that “all

of the fuel melted” on Unit 4 it’s no wonder this information was not to be

shared outside of the NRC.

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: March 17th, 2011 “…freezing out

information from the other Commissioner offices” and ” the ET stuck to

the story that U4 SFP is likely dry.”

237

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: March 17th, 2011 email-note that

the NRC is sticking with the pool as being empty and offer reasons why.

(below) From the NRC documents: a March 17th “NRC INFORMATION

NOTICE” that states “Unit 4 suffered a total loss of water along with an

inability to retain water.”

238

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Reactor and Water Pool Release

Considerations as of March 18th, 2011. Note the peak of an incredible 400

REM/hr at the Fukushima facility and the statement that “periodic additional

releases of radioactivity are occurring as the plants vent to atmosphere”.

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Reactor and Water Pool Release

Considerations as of March 18th, 2011 continued…”NRC believes that water

from the unit 4 storage pool completely drained and a violent zirconium and

water reaction occurred…”

239

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Reactor and Water Pool Release

Considerations as of March 18th, 2011 continued…Bettis Laboratory

estimates doses at 50 miles from a spent fuel pool meltdown. Evidence

throughout the NRC FOIA documents pertaining to Fukushima indicate that

estimates, assumptions and modeling was based on a worst-case-scenario at

Unit 4.

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Reactor and Water Pool Release

Considerations as of March 18th, 2011 continued. Here is why they don’t

want you to know what really happened at Fukushima Unit 4…”In the more

extreme scenarios involving significant additional core or pool damage, there

would not be sufficient time to evacuate Navy civilians, military personnel,

and their dependents to avoid the higher exposure levels discussed above.”

240

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: an email from March 18th,

2011…”Proposal to handle dried spent fuel pool.docx”

241

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: emails from March 18th, 2011 show

concern for the duration that fuel rods have been left to cool in the spent fuel

pool. Fuel rods that are a fresh offload are much hotter than fuel rods that

have cooled for 2 or more years. Hotter fuel is naturally more dangerous if

coolant levels drop or if a spent fuel pool drains out entirely.

242

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: evidence of a fresh offload of hot

fuel into the Unit 4 spent fuel pool.

243

(below) Cover-page for NRC’s “Waste Confidence Generic Environmental

Impact Statement” NUREG-2157 for the next screencapture.

244

(below) From NRC’s ”Waste Confidence Generic Environmental Impact

Statement” NUREG-2157…’time-to-release’ could be less than 10 hours if

fuel has had less than 2 years to cool.

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: March 18th brief: Unit 4 “pool

may be dry; damage to fuel rods suspected”

245

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: March 18th, 2011…the source

term provided to NARAC (does plume modeling) includes the assumption

that ”100% of the total spent fuel was released to the atmosphere from Unit

4.” Note the flawed modeling based on a limited 96 hour release. Measured

plume maps found in the NRC FOIA documents prove that emissions were

ongoing beyond the month of March, 2011.

246

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: a March 18th, 2011 email with a

reference to then NRC Chairman Jaczko’s testimony that SFP 4 was dry.

Jaczko’s information was derived from NRC officials that were ‘embedded’

with TEPCO, Conti and the Government of Japan.

247

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: a March 18th, 2011 email showing

concern for the spacing of hotter fuel rods in the Unit 4 spent fuel pool. If

freshly offloaded rods are clumped together, it makes a low or no coolant

situation exponentially worse. “Checker-boarding” stores hot fuel rods next to

cool fuel rods to even out the heat.

248

(below) From the NRC’s NUREG-2157: hot fuel rods stored in close

proximity could allow the “runaway oxidation reaction to spread”. This is

known as a “propagating zirconium cladding fire” or a “zirc fire”.

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: a March 29th, 2011 email showing

the ‘perfect storm’ for the Unit 4 spent fuel pool: full core offload about 120

days ago, no checker-boarding of hotter fuel, structural damage, dry pool and

“cladding/water” reaction.

249

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: cover-page for a summary of the

Chief Cabinet Secretary Edano’s press briefing of the 19th of March, 2011.

Note the colored chart found below indicates that the Unit 4 spent fuel pool is

“now in preparation for filling the water”.

250

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: a March 19th email from former

American Nuclear Society President William Burchill asking relevant

questions…

251

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: saltwater injection to the Unit 4

spent fuel pool did not begin until March 20th, 2011 due to access problems at

the Fukushima facility. Prior to the 20th of March, helicopter water drops

and water cannons, both labeled ineffective by NRC officials, were the only

means by which TEPCO could attempt to cool the reactors and spent fuel

pools.

252

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: cover-page for the next series of

screen captures taken from March 20th, 2011 teleconference calls.

253

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: mention of ‘signal events’ from Unit

3 and Unit 4. TEPCO’s cover-story was that the March 15th event was a ‘lube

oil fire’. NRC officials disputed TEPCO’s contention/evidence about the ‘lube

oil fire’ just as they did with TEPCO’s video ‘evidence’ of water in the spent

fuel pool of Unit 4.

254

255

256

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: The concern with Unit 4

257

258

259

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: “…the Japanese, they just grilled

us non-stop…”

260

261

262

263

264

265

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: on the Unit 4 spent fuel pool

“…they’re at a loss what to do.”

266

267

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: John Monninger on Unit 4

“…spent fuel pool…going through the floor…”

268

269

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Brian McDermott on the Unit 4

spent fuel pool “…people are worrying that that stuff has maybe melted

through that concrete floor.”

270

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Marty Virgilio on Unit 4 spent fuel

pool “…I don’t see how there could be possibly water left in there.”

271

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Dave Skeen on Unit 4 spent fuel

pool “…we’ve never seen any, any kind of steam or vapor coming out of Unit

4.”

272

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: an email from March 20th,

2011 from Yama-Yamaguchi and a stunning admission ”We will be closed

1F-1 to 1F-4 permanently” and “we should have more strong emergency

redundant cooling system required for fule [fuel] pool…”

273

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: an email from Brian Sheron,

NRC’s Director of the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, in regards to

some questions from Congressional staff. It appears as if someone was

showing interest as to why the NRC decided the melted fuel rods would not

ablate (burn through) through the concrete floor of the spent fuel pool.

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: a March 21st email reveals that ’

Clarification and assessment of potential radiological release source terms for

Fukushima Units 3&4 spent fuel pools, earlier estimates were made based on

earlier Peach Bottom analysis and followup is needed to address Fukushima

and complete dryout and concrete attack…’

274

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: an email from March 21st, 2011

about the Unit 4 spent fuel pool “the one that they’ve had trouble keeping

covered”

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: cover-page for March 23rd, 2011

teleconference calls…

275

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: March 23rd, 2011 and TEPCO

is trying another scheme in an attempt to get closer to the pool with a 50-

meter boom truck…

276

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: NRC officials have problems with

TEPCO’s thermal signature…

277

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: March 23rd, 2011 water drops on

spent fuel pool #4 continue with no change to external dose.

278

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: NRC Officials discuss the

‘bounding analysis’ that includes 100% of the Unit 4 spent fuel pool.

279

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: March 23rd, 2011…Robert Lewis,

Director of NRC’s Office of Preparedness and Response, on a NARAC

plume/dose model “It also includes I think a large fraction 100 percent of Unit

4 which we know has already had some release.”

280

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: March 23rd, 2011…NRC officials

unable to take the Unit 4 spent fuel pool “off the table” as a source term

(radioactive emission)

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: seawater injection to the Unit 4

spent fuel pool from the 24th to 25th of March, 2011 causes “white smoke”.

281

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: an email from March 28th, 2011

calculations show that TEPCO is losing water in a 1 to 22 ratio in the spent

fuel pool of Unit 4. Without leak a 44.60 inch increase in water height should

have occurred after adding 125 tons of water. TEPCO numbers show a mere

2 inch rise in coolant height after adding 125 tons of water.

282

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: a March 28th, 2011 email evidence

that some were questioning an NRC technical opinion that criticality in the

Unit 4 spent fuel pool (probably re-criticality at this point if you consider the

evidence already put forth in this book) is unlikely based on the presence of

“low density racks of borated stainless steel”. Note that the Unit 4 racks were

not borated. Also note the reference to 204 fresh fuel assemblies and “fuel

damage due to uncovery’.

283

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: the effects of pumping seawater in

a reactor or spent fuel pool after a meltdown…hot aqueous chloride would

cause stress corrosion cracking of the stainless steel cladding and piping etc.

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: March 29th, 2011 from an NRC

brief…”…no access [to U-4] due to dose rates.” High dose rates=no

repairs/countermeasures.

284

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: GE had “first hand observations”

based on “eye-witness accounts” from the refueling floor of the Unit 4 spent

fuel pool when the earthquake struck.

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: March 31st email indicating that a

note about the Unit 4 SFP that was in an earlier report is now missing from an

updated report…but was the “differing information about water levels” ever

resolved?

285

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: March 31st, 2011…an email that

disputes then Chairman Gregory Jaczko’s statement to the ‘Deputies meeting’

that the Unit 4 spent fuel pool was full of water. Jaczko’s statement from the

30th of March, 2011, as indicated in this email, contradicts his own from

March 15th, 2011.

286

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: an April 4th, 2011 email discussing

the ‘junk-shot’ that will patch “the Leak at Fukushima”

287

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: an email from April 6th, 2011 in

regards to a presentation for the “European Melcore User Group”…one of

the key points “…there was a leak from the pool which depleted the water.”

288

289

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: an April 6th, 2011 email…”Over

the last few days, the makeup to the Unit 4 SFP has not been sufficient to

offset TEPCO’s calculated losses from steaming.”

290

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: April 6th, 2011…Unit 4 spent fuel

pool cooling is “challenged” and integrity has “failed”.

291

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: April 7th, 2011 ”ongoing activity” is

“not intended to be shared with other stakeholders without Executive Team

approval.” Note that as of April 7th, 2011 officials are still considering the

sand and lead ‘slurry’ additive to the Unit 4 spent fuel pool as a possibility.

292

293

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: April 8th status update of Unit 4.

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: an April 12th email from Per

Peterson from Berkeley.edu that disputes TEPCO’s temperature reading of

the Unit 4 spent fuel pool.

294

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: another email from Per Peterson

from Berkeley.edu disputing TEPCO’s temperature levels of the unit 4 spent

fuel pool and stating that “The evidence is beginning to accumulate that the

water level on March 12 was already low…”

295

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: excellent questions that dispute

more of TEPCO’s claims about the Unit 4 spent fuel pool.

296

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: an April 15th email in regards

to the TEPCO claim that the spent fuel is undamaged and that “This is a more

positive view than yesterday’s statement that damage occurred to some fuel

rods.”

297

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: April 16th status update of Unit 4.

298

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: a Monday April 18th, 2011 email in

regards to TEPCO’s “Roadmap towards Restoration”…note comment

number 4.

299

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: April 22nd status on Unit 4.

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: April 28th…TEPCO, possibly the

world’s worst flip-floppers, now admit publicly that a potential leak in the

spent fuel pool of Unit 4 may exist.

(below) An excerpt from the Robert Alvarez Study titled ”Spent Nuclear Fuel

Pools in the U.S.: Reducing the Deadly Risks of Storage”. What you need to

know about spent fuel pool fires…

“In the summer of 2002, the Institute for Policy Studies helped organize a working group

including experts from academia, the nuclear industry, former government officials, and non-

profit research groups to perform in in-depth study of the vulnerabilities of spent power reactor

fuel pools to terrorist attacks. By January 2003, our study was completed and accepted for

publication in the peer-review journal Science and Global Security We warned that U.S. spent

fuel pools were vulnerable to acts of terror. The drainage of a pool might cause a catastrophic

radiation fire, which could render an area uninhabitable much greater than that created by the

Chernobyl accident.

300

In addition to terrorist acts, there are several events could cause a loss of pool water, including

leakage, evaporation, siphoning, pumping, aircraft impact, earthquake, the accidental or

deliberate drop of a fuel transport cask, reactor failure, or an explosion inside or Spent Nuclear

Fuel Pools in the U.S.: Reducing the Deadly Effects of Storage outside the pool building.

Industry officials maintain that personnel would have sufficient time to provide an alternative

cooling system before the spent fuel caught fire. But if the water level dropped to just a few feet

above the spent fuel, the radiation doses in the pool building would be lethal — as was

demonstrated by the loss of water in at least two spent fuel pools at the Fukushima Dai-Ichi

nuclear power station. The NRC and nuclear industry consultants disputed the paper, which

prompted Congress to ask the National Academy of Sciences to sort out this controversy. In

2004, the Academy reported that U.S. pools were vulnerable to terrorist attack and to

catastrophic fires. According the Academy:

“A loss-of-pool-coolant event resulting from damage or collapse of the pool could have severe

consequences…It is not prudent to dismiss nuclear plants, including spent fuel storage facilities

as undesirable targets for terrorists…under some conditions, a terrorist attack that partially or

completely drained a spent fuel pool could lead to a propagating zirconium cladding fire and

release large quantities of radioactive materials to the environment…Such fires would create

thermal plumes that could potentially transport radioactive aerosols hundreds of miles downwind

under appropriate atmospheric conditions.”

The NRC’s response to this was to attempt to block the release of the Academy’s report.”

301

(below) From the NRC ‘s NUREG-2157…”the NRC confirmed that the

overall risks associated with these types of accidents remain low because the

spent fuel pool loss-of-coolant event probability is low (NRC 2001)” and “…no

new information has emerged that would cause the NRC to question the

results of this study.”

(below) From the NRC’s NUREG-2157: causes of a spent fuel pool fire…

302

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Gary Holahan, Deputy Director for

the Office of New Reactors , makes a stunning admission in response to

President Obama’s directive of the NRC to conduct a comprehensive review

the domestic fleet of NPPs : “…we likely will need to re-visit the issue of non-

seismically qualified SFPs [in the US]…of which I recall there are many.”

303

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: from a March 21st email

on Fukushima Unit 4 “…the melt would be retained in the spent fuel pool.”

(below) From the NRC’s NUREG-2157: decay times of less than 2 years (fuel

rods that have cooled less than 2 years and are still hot) ”time-of-release”

(time to release radiation) could be less than 10 hours. If the fuel rods have

cooled longer than 2 years it could take longer than 10 hours…

304

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: at the September 18th

, 2013 ‘Japan

Lessons Learned Project Directorate Public Meeting’ in Rockville, Maryland

NRC’s Deputy Director for Reactor Safety Programs, Jennifer Uhle, speaks to

the American public about the spent fuel pools at Fukushima NPP…

305

Chapter 5

Potassium Iodine (KI)

Let’s talk about Potassium Iodine (KI). Our nuclear plants don’t stock it and we are told by NRC

officials it’s not that big of a deal to have in the event of a nuclear accident. Nothing could be

further from the truth. Let’s see how important KI is to have in an accident like Fukushima:

(below) From the NRC website: the revised rule requires that States consider

including KI as a protective measure. Considering to NOT stock KI is not a

violation. Confused yet?

“The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has revised a section of its emergency preparedness

regulations. The revised rule requires that States* with a population within the 10-mile

emergency planning zone (EPZ) of commercial nuclear power plants consider including

potassium iodide as a protective measure for the general public to supplement sheltering and

evacuation in the unlikely event of a severe nuclear power plant accident.

The final rule amends 10 CFR 50.47(b)(10). The NRC published the rule change in the Federal

Register (Volume 66, Number 13, page 5427) on January 19, 2001. The change became effective

April 19, 2001.

Along with this rule change, the NRC is providing funding for a supply of potassium iodide for a

State that chooses to incorporate potassium iodide for the general public into their emergency

plans. After funding the initial supply of potassium iodide, the Commission decided to fund the

replenishment on a one-time basis.

Potassium iodide is a salt, similar to table salt. Its chemical symbol is KI. It is routinely added to

table salt to make it "iodized." Potassium iodide, if taken within the appropriate time and at the

appropriate dosage, blocks the thyroid gland's uptake of radioactive iodine and thus reduces the

risk of thyroid cancers and other diseases that might otherwise be caused by thyroid uptake of

radioactive iodine that could be dispersed in a severe reactor accident.

The NRC and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) are the two Federal

agencies responsible for evaluating emergency preparedness at and around nuclear power plants.

306

The NRC is responsible for assessing the adequacy of onsite emergency plans developed by the

utility, while FEMA is responsible for assessing the adequacy of offsite emergency planning.

The NRC relies on FEMA’s findings in determining that there is reasonable assurance that

adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is the definitive medical authority in the United States

on the use of potassium iodide.

Eligibility for Obtaining Potassium Iodide

This rule applies to States and Tribal governments with nuclear power plants within their

borders, with populations within the 10-mile EPZ, and local governments designated by States to

request potassium iodide funding.

The Commission believes the final rule, together with the Commission's decision to provide

funding for the purchase of a State's supply of potassium iodide, strikes a proper balance

between encouraging (but not requiring) the offsite authorities to take advantage of the benefits

of potassium iodide and acknowledging the offsite authorities' role in such matters. By requiring

consideration of the use of potassium iodide, the Commission recognizes the important role of

States and local governments in matters of emergency planning.

307

(below) Former NRC Chairman Jaczko on KI: it is the responsibility of the

state and local governments. Representative Markey’s response: “I just don’t

think they [the states] have the

expertise…”

308

(below) FROM THE NRC FOIA documents: this is a measured (not modeled)

plume map showing a cloud over 60 kilometers long from the 30th of March,

2011. Is the NRC being rational with it’s 10 mile recommendation for stocking

KI? (to my knowledge, maps such as this have not been shared with US States.)

309

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: US States are denied the SitRep

(situation report). How can US States make an informed decision about the

use of KI when critical information is withheld from them by the NRC and

other agencies?

(below) From EPA.gov.

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: please note the section underlined

in red.

310

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: again, please note the underlined

and boxed sections in red.

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: the other side of the story…KI is a

‘must have’ during a meltdown.

311

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: discussion of a world-wide ‘…run

on potassium iodide…”

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: the Japanese provide a list of

needful things…one million doses of KI is on that list.

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: 1 million KI pills from ANBEX

confirmed.

312

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: evidence of KI being shipped to

Japan.

313

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Chuck Casto: “There’s plenty of

KI…”

314

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: mass distribution of KI in Japan.

315

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: “Do you have any spare KI…?”

316

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Chuck Casto forgets his KI stash…

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: pick up your KI at the health center

before heading for Japan…

317

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: KI and a dose meter…don’t leave

for Japan without it.

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: NRC team members were given KI

before they left.

318

Chapter 6

Non-seismically Qualified Spent Fuel Pools

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: evidence of many non-seismically

qualified Spent Fuel Pools in the US…

319

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: further evidence of non-seismically

qualified Spent Fuel Pools in the US…

320

Chapter 7

NPPs on the East Coast and West Coast are not prepared for Earthquakes and Tsunamis

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: tsunami coincident with a seismic

event not considered as possibility for US NPPs…

321

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: evidence US Nuclear Power Plants

are not prepared for a coincident earthquake/tsunami and evidence that the

NRC doesn’t know everything about the seismicity of the Continental Eastern

United States (CEUS).

322

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents (part 1 of a 2 part series): an email

where NRC employees discuss former Secretary of Energy Steven Chu’s

botched interview on CNN. Mr. Chu was asked if Diablo Canyon Nuclear

Power Plant could withstand a 9.0 earthquake. His response indicated it

would not. This is a perfect example of why the NRC places such a high level

of importance on talking points, questions and answers and the ever popular

press release.

323

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents (part 2 of a 2 part series): On Steven

Chu’s bungled interview…Public Affairs Officer David McIntyre emails Eliot

Brenner, the Director of the NRC’s Office of Public Affairs (OPA), and

suggests that the Secretary of Energy should have told a lie during the CNN

interview.

324

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: the tsunami was about 46 feet in

height.

325

Chapter 8

TEPCO has been intentionally discharging radioactive water from the beginning and the NRC has known all along

There is evidence that TEPCO has been intentionally discharging radioactive water into the

Pacific since March and April of 2011 and this evidence comes from the NRC FOIA documents.

NRC has known this all along.

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: evidence that TEPCO intentionally

discharged about 13,390 tons of ‘low-level’ radioactive water into the Pacific

on April 10th, 2011.

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: further evidence of intentional

discharge of contaminated water…

326

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: multiple discharges to the sea…one

is ‘concentrated RW’

327

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: TEPCO report from April 8th,

2011…more evidence of intentional discharge into the Pacific.

328

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents (part 1 of a 2 part series): an email

to Former Secretary of Energy Steven Chu about the need for sampling levels

of radioactivity in the Pacific Ocean near Fukushima. Concern over ‘political

sensitivities’ is mentioned (remember that Plume-Gate occurred during

Obama’s run for a 2nd term and that 99% of all sectors of media remained

silent on the cover-up revealed in the NRC FOIA documents)

329

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents (part 2 of a 2 part series): on the

heels of the Bechtel pump deal (see below), where the American taxpayer was

bilked for 9.6 billion dollars, former Secretary of Energy Steven Chu shows

concern over ‘who will pay’ for sampling of the Pacific Ocean for levels of

radioactivity.

330

Chapter 9

The Saga of the Bechtel Pumps

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: the folly of man.

331

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: the cost of the Bechtel pumps starts

down low…then starts to grow!

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: payment on the Bechtel pumps

confirmed.

332

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: the Bechtel pumps will NOT be

used…

333

Chapter 10

The President’s Source Term

In the NRC FOIA documents pertaining to Fukushima there is evidence of modeling done using

the ’President’s source term’ which, for all intents and purposes, was a worst-case-scenario. Did

President Obama, then running for reelection in 2012, act on a worst-case-scenario? While he

gave no public warnings or advisories, President Obama, his family and then DOE Chairman

Steven Chu did make a hasty departure for South America and managed to avoid the arrival of

the initial plume and fallout from Fukushima.

334

(Below) From the NRC FOIA documents: NARAC does not like ‘the

president’s source term’. (note: the details of the president’s source term are

described in the screencapture following this one)

335

(Below) From the NRC FOIA documents: President Obama’s source term is

essentially a worst-case-scenario: 3 reactors and all 4 spent fuel pools.

336

(Below) From the NRC FOIA documents: then NRC Chairman Jaczko to be

informed of the ’president’s run results in, in California, Hawaii and those

places.’

337

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: NRC official Jim Wiggins discusses

a White House request to run a model that will make President Obama’s Rose

Garden speech true…AFTER the speech has already been given. Remember

that President Obama left for South America with family not long after his

Rose Garden advisory…

338

(Below) NOT FROM THE NRC FOIA documents: President Obama, his

family, then DOE Chairman Steven Chu and others avoid the worst of the

plume and fallout…

339

Chapter 11

Plumes and Navy Ships

I suggest to you that if Navy ships were moved in an effort to avoid radioactive plumes, they

were not moved on the scale and to the degree they should have been. At the end of the day

one simple fact remains: just as a warning of the radioactive plume and fallout to those living on

the West Coast of the USA would have been a wake up call about the reality of nuclear power,

moving Navy ships en masse would also have been an indication that the situation at Fukushima

(and the situation with nuclear power in general) was much more grave than authorities had been

leading the American public to believe.

340

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: don’t run the worst-case scenario if

you’re getting angst about moving Naval ships…

341

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Admiral Donald and Admiral

Willard discuss radiation measurements taken aboard the USS George

Washington (continued on next page)

342

343

344

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Admiral Willard: “…35 samples of

airborne radioactivity…” and “…we had three other plumes go over us

Tuesday and Wednesday.”

345

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: ‘Forward trajectories’ starting

March 12th, 2011. Please note that while this modeling was available to the

NRC, it was not done by the NRC.

346

347

348

349

350

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Jaczko covering his ass.

351

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: TEPCO measured plumes from late

March,

2011.

352

353

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: this March 21st email from Jennifer

Uhle is proof that Naval reactors knew all about the ‘melt on the floor’ in the

spent fuel pool of Unit 4…”The question Naval reactors is asking is whether

the Unit 4 SFP will reach concrete ablation temperatures.”

354

Chapter 12

The March 8-10th, 2011 Regulatory Information Conference (RIC)

The possibility has been raised that the Fukushima Earthquake and Tsunami of March 11th

, 2011

was not a natural event. Declassified documents titled “The Final Report of Project ‘Seal’”

reveal that the U.S. military had taken a keen interest in the development of a ‘tsunami bomb’ as

early as 1944. In the NRC FOIA documents pertaining to Fukushima, I found that a Regulatory

Information Conference took place from the 8th -

10th

of March, 2011 in Rockville Maryland

(where NRC headquarters are found) and that many Japanese ‘seismic specialists’ were on hand.

Eliot Brenner, then head of NRC’s Office of Public Affairs, admits in a March 11th

2011 email

that Japanese ‘Utility Execs’ are using the ‘communications facility’ at ‘our building’. This only

a day after the RIC conference has ended. In theory, if an operation was conducted to generate an

artificial tsunami, by whatever means, many of the players needed to control and suppress the

information following the event would have likely still been hanging around from the RIC which

ended on the 10th…from the NRC to the DOE to FEMA to DHS to NARAC (one of the big

influences on plume modeling) to JNES.

Also worth noting is the ‘NRC Incident Response’ presentation by NSIR (NRC’s Office of

Nuclear Security and Incident Response), that took place on March 10th

, 2011…the final day of

the RIC. The presentation appears to outline the flow and control of information after an incident

such as Fukushima has occurred. Interestingly enough, many of the agencies indicated in this

presentation appear to be participating in the cover-up to one degree or another.

355

(Below) From the NRC FOIA documents: an amazing coincidence: the

Japanese Nuclear Industry was in the U.S. for the March 8-10th, 2011

Regulatory Information Conference (RIC) that ended on the 10th

, just one day

before the Fukushima

event

356

(Below) From the NRC FOIA documents: concern by NRC’s head of OPA

Eliot Brenner about ‘rumor control’ over the fact that Japanese ‘utility execs’

are in town for the RIC and using the NRC’s ‘communications facilities’ to

respond to the quake.

357

(Below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Friday, March 11th, 2011 9:16 AM

‘JNES-NRC bi-lateral co-operation meeting is happening now…’ (note: JNES

is the Japan Nuclear Energy Safety Organization)

358

(Below) From the NRC FOIA documents and the NSIR presentation at the

RIC: NRC’s responsibilities during an ‘incident’…

359

(Below) From the NRC FOIA documents and the NSIR presentation at the

RIC: during an ‘incident’ the NRC must coordinate with other agencies…

360

(Below) From the NRC FOIA documents and the NSIR presentation at the

RIC: DOE asset NARAC (National Atmospheric Release Advisory Center)

downplayed and delayed the modeling of radiological releases from

Fukushima…

361

(Below) From the NRC FOIA documents: the 2004 Indonesian Tsunami,

caused by another magnitude 9 earthquake, flooded cooling water intakes at

India’s Kalpakkam Nuclear Power Plant forcing an automatic shutdown.

362

(Below) NOT FROM THE NRC FOIA documents: now declassified, Project

Seal was an effort to design and perfect an artificial tsunami bomb.

363

(Below) NOT from the NRC FOIA documents: more from Project Seal: 1.)

‘…investigations lead to conclusion that offensive inundation is possible under

favorable circumstances.’ 2.) ’…wave amplitudes of the order of those for

recorded tidal waves, which have been disastrous, can be obtained.’ 3.) ‘The

use of atomic bombs as multiple charges may be more practicable.’

364

Chapter 13

Plume Maps and Modeling

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: RSMC Beijing modeling is not

based on an actual release but on a potential release…

365

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (1 in a series of 5) trajectories of

potential release by height (500, 1500 and 3000 meters) and time (March 16th

-

21st, 2011)

366

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (2 in a series of 5) modeling from

March 18th

-19th

, 2011

367

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (3 in a series of 5) modeling from

March 19th-20th, 2011

368

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (4 in a series of 5) modeling from

March 20th-21st, 2011

369

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (5 in a series of 5) modeling from

March 16th-21st, 2011 total wet and dry depositions

370

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (1 in a series of 4) trajectories of

potential release by height (500, 1500 and 3000 meters) and time (March 16th-

21st, 2011)

371

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (2 in a series of 4) modeling from

March 18th-19th, 2011

372

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (3 in a series of 4) modeling from

March 19th-20th, 2011

373

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (4 in a series of 4) modeling from March 20th-21st, 2011

374

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (1 in a series of 5) trajectories of potential release by height (500, 1500 and 3000 meters) and time

(March 16th-19th, 2011)

375

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (2 in a series of 5) modeling from March 16th-17th, 2011

376

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (3 in a series of 5) modeling from March 17th-18th, 2011

377

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (4 in a series of 5) modeling from March 18th-19th, 2011

378

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (5 in a series of 5) modeling from March 16th-19th, 2011

379

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (1 in a series of 5) trajectories of potential release by height (500, 1500 and 3000 meters) and time

(March 20th-23rd, 2011) for I-131

380

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (2 in a series of 5) modeling from March 20th-21st, 2011

381

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (3 in a series of 5) modeling from March 16th-19th, 2011

382

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (4 in a series of 5) modeling from March 16th-19th, 2011

383

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (5 in a series of 5) modeling from March 20th-23rd, 2011 total wet and dry deposition

384

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (1 in a series of 5) trajectories of potential release by height (500, 1500 and 3000 meters) and time

(March 20th-23rd, 2011)

385

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (2 in a series of 5) modeling from March 20th-21st, 2011

386

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (3 in a series of 5) modeling from March 21st-22nd, 2011

387

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (4 in a series of 5) modeling from March 22nd-23rd, 2011

388

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (5 in a series of 5) modeling from March 20th-23rd, 2011 total deposition

389

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (1 in a series of 4) trajectories of potential release by height (500, 1500 and 3000 meters) and time

(March 20th-23rd, 2011)

390

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (2 in a series of 4) modeling from March 20th-21st, 2011 of I-131

391

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (3 in a series of 4) modeling from March 21st-22nd, 2011 of I-131

392

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (4 in a series of 4) modeling from March 20th-22nd, 2011 of I-131

393

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (1 in a series of 6) trajectories of potential release by height (500, 1500 and 3000 meters) and time

(March 20th-25th, 2011)

394

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (2 in a series of 6) modeling from March 20th-22nd, 2011 for I-131

395

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (3 in a series of 6) modeling from March 20th-22nd, 2011 for I-131

396

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (4 in a series of 6) modeling from March 20th-22nd, 2011 for I-131

397

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (5 in a series of 6) modeling from March 20th-22nd, 2011 for I-131

398

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (6 in a series of 6) modeling from March 20th-22nd, 2011 for I-131

399

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (1 in a series of 5) trajectories of potential release by height (500, 1500 and 3000 meters) and time

(March 20th-26th, 2011)

400

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (2 in a series of 5) modeling from March 23rd-24th, 2011

401

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (3 in a series of 5) modeling from March 24th-25th, 2011

402

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (4 in a series of 5) modeling from March 25th-26th, 2011

403

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (5 in a series of 5) modeling from March 23th-26th, 2011

404

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (1 in a series of 5) trajectories of potential release by height (500, 1500 and 3000 meters) and time

(March 23rd-26th, 2011)

405

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (2 in a series of 5) modeling from March 22nd-24th, 2011 of I-131

406

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (3 in a series of 5) modeling from March 24th-25th, 2011 of I-131

407

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (4 in a series of 5) modeling from March 25th-26th, 2011 of I-131

408

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (5 in a series of 5) modeling from March 22nd-23rd, 2011 total wet and dry deposition

409

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (1 in a series of 4) trajectories of potential release by height (500, 1500 and 3000 meters) and time

(March 20th-23rd, 2011)

410

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (2 in a series of 4) modeling from March 20th-21st, 2011

411

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (3 in a series of 4) modeling from March 20th-22nd, 2011

412

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (4 in a series of 4) modeling from March 20th-23rd, 2011 total wet and dry deposition

413

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (1 in a series of 5) trajectories of potential release by height (500, 1500 and 3000 meters) and time

(March 20th-23rd, 2011)

414

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (2 in a series of 5) modeling from March 20th-21st, 2011

415

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (3 in a series of 5) modeling from March 21st-22nd, 2011

416

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (4 in a series of 5) modeling from March 22nd-23rd, 2011

417

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (5 in a series of 5) modeling from March 20th-23rd, 2011

418

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (1 in a series of 5) trajectories of potential release by height (500, 1500 and 3000 meters) and time

(March 20th-23rd, 2011)

419

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (2 in a series of 5) modeling from March 20th-21st, 2011

420

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (3 in a series of 5) modeling from March 21st-22nd, 2011 of I-131

421

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (4 in a series of 5) modeling from March 22nd-23rd, 2011 of I-131

422

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (5 in a series of 5) modeling from March 20th-23rd, 2011 of I-131 total wet and dry deposition

423

Chapter 14

Tokyo

It is important to remember that the plumes from Fukushima contained more than just I-131 and

Cs-137. Plutonium, in aerosolized form, was also carried aloft in the repeated plumes that were

emitted in the months following the disaster. Part of the Plume-Gate cover-up is designed to

convince the world that Tokyo was largely unaffected by fallout from Fukushima. Nothing could

be further from the truth.

424

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: cover page for a March 20th

, 2011

transcription of teleconference calls that reveal Tokyo suffered exposure to

repeated plumes from the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant catastrophe.

425

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: heavy redaction begins a conference call where an unusually high ‘zeolite cartridge’ sample is questioned. NRC and Navy officials admit plumes traveled down the

coast of Japan, onshore and across metropolitan Tokyo.

426

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: NRC official John Monniger asks if Unit 3 (with MOX fuel) has been venting radiation. Measured plume

maps from the NRC FOIA documents prove that Units 1-4 vented on and off well into the month of April, 2011.

427

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: proof that Navy and Naval Reactors were aware of the situation…

428

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: NRC officials scramble to find out details of a very high radiation detection…

429

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: evidence that Admiral Thomas was the source of the zeolite sample that some NRC officials questioned…

430

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: the sample was taken south of Tokyo…Kathy Gibson: “And they asked if we can back-calculate a dose in

Tokyo.”

431

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: NRC official Kathy Gibson yet again downplays radiation data…did she move a decimal one place? It’s

the difference between 1.6X10 to the power of -6 and 1.6X10 to the power of -7.

432

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: the ‘silver zeolite sample’ from the Navy is “…a factor of 100 different than what’s being reported here.”

433

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: evidence the sample was collected south of Tokyo…

434

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: NRC officials along with Admiral

Donald and Admiral Willard discuss multiple plumes moving down the coast

of Japan…

435

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (continued from above) Admiral

Willard: “The plume right now as we have seen in the forecast graphics have

previously extended almost due south along the coastline to impact Yukoska

and they are swinging further to the west further inland and over

metropolitan Tokyo and to the bases that are further inland and further north

and west from Yukoska.”

436

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: spatial relation between Tokyo and

Fukushima

437

(below) NOT FROM THE FOIA DOCUMENTS: 238.34 kilometers distance between Tokyo and Fukushima…

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (author’s note: this split screen view consists of a map of Japan and a plume model (both found in the

NRC FOIA documents but placed side by side by the author) that covered the dates of March 21st-22nd, 2011)

438

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: plume model covers the dates March 22nd-23rd of 2011…

439

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: plume model covers the dates March 20th-23rd total deposition of I-131…remember that none of the

modeling found in the NRC FOIA documents covers the radioactive isotope Plutonium which is known to be carried aloft in aerosolized

form (see next page). Unit 3 utilized MOX fuel which has a higher percentage of Plutonium than most fuel rods.

440

(below) NOT FROM THE NRC FOIA DOCUMENTS: aerosolized plutonium

from Fukushima traveled around the globe and was detected as far away as

Lithuania.

441

Chapter 15

References:

Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment:

http://www.strahlentelex.de/Yablokov%20Chernobyl%20book.pdf

Bobby1 Fatality Index Study: http://freepdfhosting.com/37cc0eae6b.pdf

Sherman/Mangano Fatality Index Study: http://www.radiation.org/reading/pubs/HS42_1F.pdf

Sherman/Mangano elevated hypothyroidism on West Coast study:

http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=28599

Shut Down by Earnest Sternglass (low level radiation study):

http://www.ki4u.com/secretfallout.pdf

Spent Nuclear Fuel Pools in the U.S.: Reducing the Deadly Risks of Storage by Robert Alvarez:

http://www.ips-

dc.org/reports/spent_nuclear_fuel_pools_in_the_us_reducing_the_deadly_risks_of_storage

NRC FOIA documents pertaining to Japan: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/foia/japan-foia-

info.html

Link to NRC FOIA document on Unit 4 and the TEPCO video:

http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1205/ML12052A108.pdf

Link to NRC FOIA document on Navy ships and plumes, President’s worst-case-scenario, more:

http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1205/ML12052A111.pdf

Link to NRC FOIA document ‘children’s doses in California’:

http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1205/ML12052A109.pdf

Link to NRC FOIA document MOX fuel, SITREP, more:

http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1212/ML12122A949.pdf

Link to NRC FOIA document SITREP, unit 4 dry, more:

http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1203/ML12034A191.pdf

Link to NRC FOIA document plume map takedown, more:

http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1212/ML12122A300.pdf

Link to NRC FOIA document Yamaguchi letter on unit 4, more:

http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1128/ML11287A115.pdf

442

Link to NRC FOIA document Markey letter, more:

http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1208/ML12080A196.pdf

Link to NRC FOIA document measured plume maps late March 2011, more:

http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1212/ML12123A058.pdfL

Link to NRC FOIA document measured plumes to April 2011, battery life, more:

http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1212/ML12123A058.pdf

Link to NRC FOIA document 35 REM Alaska, Midway, more:

http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1300/ML13008A112.pdf

Link to NRC FOIA document rooftop grabs, more:

http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1220/ML12201B454.pdf

Link to NRC FOIA document evidence of Japan Earthquake and Tsunami Drill, more:

http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1123/ML11230A043.pdf

Link to NRC FOIA document James Inhofe Committee on Environment and Public Works letter

says Jaczko may have broken law, more:

http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1323/ML13232A221.pdf

Link to NRC FOIA document transcripts of September, 2013 Japan Lessons Learned Public

Meeting: http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1327/ML13277A215.pdf

443

Chapter 16

About the Author:

Tony Muga aka: Hatrick Penry is a 45 year old broadcaster, musician and published alternative

media author hailing from Gainesville, Florida. He is best known for his work on Plume-Gate,

the orchestrated cover-up by U.S. authorities of the radioactive plume and fallout from the

Fukushima meltdowns. Find out more about Hatrick Penry and Plume-Gate at his website

hatrickpenryunbound.com, his YouTube Channel, Twitter, word press blog: ‘Uncovering Plume-

Gate’ and his BlogTalkRadio broadcast. Find Hatrick Penry’s music here:

http://itmusic.us/hatrickpenry/http://itmusic.us/hatrickpenry/

444

Cover art by Marcelo Manuel